DSLRUsers.com

I'd really appreciate some critique and feedback from those much more knowledgable with off camera/studio lighting than I.

Some time ago I ordered a softbox designed for portable speedlights (as opposed to large studio strobes) for the princely sum of $35. This sounds insanely cheap and surely you couldn't expect too much for something that costs less than a good meal for one. The softbox I have packs up into quite a small bag but once unfolded becomes a 24 inch by 24 inch (60x60cm) square softbox and included is the speedring and ballhead with cold shoe bracket for the flash - everything you need to then simply attach to the top of a lightstand.

I hadn't used it all that much so I've been getting it out lately experimenting with a few things and have produced quite a few images that I've been quite happy with and in most cases they look good (at least to me ) straight out of camera with little post processing required. For now I'm just trying to limit the variables to a single strobe before attempting multiple lights, etc.

My first attempt was on Boxing Day when our neighbours came over, it was late afternoon so I setup a lightstand with softbox in the back yard and put my Sigma 50/1.4 on. The sky had these nice chunky clouds and I wanted them both to have this deep ominous colour so I coloured the flash with a clip on yellow tint diffuser to colour the light and since the coloured light would only fall on my subject when I corrected the final image for the strong yellow tint the white balance would hopefully shift dramatically blue/purple.

I had my subjects (the kids) stand on a chair so I could shoot more up at them so I could have more sky in the background (this isn't ideal for a good pose but I was playing more with the gel effect than anything else). I shot at sync speed (1/250th) to start with to massively underexpose ambient and make the colours I get darker, deeper and richer.

Here is one I was very happy with - this is almost straight out of camera with the major change being the white balance correction for the subject.



A week later and my daughter had a friend stay over so...

In this first it's daytime so I've setup the softbox in a room with a darkish wall about 3 metres behind. I shot with the 70-200 f/2.8 and shot at f/9 and sync speed (1/250th) this time to try and really kill all ambient and go to black. The softbox is close to the left and slightly above the subjects and on the right is a silver tri-grip reflector quite close (which you can see because she is holding it herself ) for a bit of fill.



That evening I setup the lightstand in a room with an open door to outside with a clear view to the sky (my background). It was later this time with sunset coming soon - I gelled the SB900 again but this time with those little gel things which come with the flash - a full cut of orange and set my camera to Tungsten white balance to compensate. Again with the 70-200, one of my middle daughter, softbox close on the left and slightly above subject with a single SB900, no reflector, etc



Another day and my eldest two daughters had their haircut so they decided it was OK to pose for a few shots and allowed me to setup my lightstand, softbox and flash. For this shoot I decided to try out the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro lens as a portrait lens. Again I gelled the SB900 with a full cut of orange and set the camera to Tungsten white balance. It was just on sunset so the sky was still a bit light and there were puffy pink clouds in the sky. I was hoping again to have the sky go a deep blue because of the white balance shift but I'd left it too late. Shot again with us all in a room standing inside in front of an open door to outside.

I tried shooting at a slowish shutter speed (1/60) and a wideish aperture to try and drag in some ambient but it really wasn't enough - a shot of my eldest daughter.



After that I decided to just kill ambient by shooting at sync speed (1/250th) and shot at f/8 and here are my two other daughters...





and lastly I tried a group shot with the three girls - had to move the softbox quite a way from them to fit them all in, I backed away as far as I could in the room (against the wall) and here we go. I knew I didn't have enough depth of field to get them all in and the shots I tried at f/11 weren't much better.



Mods: the post does have more than the allowed number - but they do all go together so if you feel it would be better in the Photo Journeys section?

Remorhaz wrote:Here is one I was very happy with -

And rightly so. Personally I wouldn't change anything about it. Well done!

Rodney, i will be honest, i fell asleep after the second paragraph

Seriously though, i am no expert but i reckon the lighting is very tidy, great wrap around (which is a marked imporvement from you previous one) and nicely diffused.

The first one stands out, not because of teh lighting but the subject, the lighting on all of them is good. Did any one mention to that little girl that she could smile

IN the second image, i think you need some more angle on teh light source, particularly for your daughter, the lighting on her face is flat and there are no shadows, hence no definition or structure which is more evident in all other other shots and even on the other girl in that photo.

does your soft box have baffles?

Rodney,

First of all,

Remorhaz wrote:Mods: the post does have more than the allowed number - but they do all go together so if you feel it would be better in the Photo Journeys section?

No, this is fine, and for exactly the reasons you suggest. When there's an overriding thread between the images - such as to demonstrate or learn a technique, as in this instance - then it's entirely appropriate that the images all be shown contiguously.

Ok, there's my big word for the day.

With all due respect to Gerry, my feelings on the first two images are pretty much exactly the opposite of what he's saying. The first image is good, but I feel that the light has been placed too close to the plane within which the model has been placed; it needs to have been brought further forward, relative to where she was standing. But not by much. Look at the shadow on her left cheek: the fall-off there is a little too great for my liking, and by bringing the light source around and forward just a little, you would get better illumination on the left side of her face, and possibly (but not essential) her left ear as well.

It also could have been set just a little bit higher. Look at the shadow to the immediate right of her nose, as we are looking at the image. By placing the light forward of her (as suggested above) this shadow would lose a little intensity, and by moving the light's location a little higher, you would also move the shadow down a little bit, below her nose, rather than to the side of it. Classic portraiture texts might describe a "butterfly" shadow effect. I'm not suggesting that you need to try to attain that, but shadow placement does bear consideration.

In this first it's daytime so I've setup the softbox in a room with a darkish wall about 3 metres behind. I shot with the 70-200 f/2.8 and shot at f/9 and sync speed (1/250th) this time to try and really kill all ambient and go to black. The softbox is close to the left and slightly above the subjects and on the right is a silver tri-grip reflector quite close (which you can see because she is holding it herself ) for a bit of fill.

Ok, a couple of points here. Gerry describes the lighting (on your daughter) in this image as being a little flat. I don't know that I accept that; I'm seeing good shadow definition on her cheeks, and especially good lighting wrap-around, which is exactly what I suggested was missing from the first. Compare the models' lh cheeks and ears in the two images.

You've also raised the position of the light source (as I've suggested above), and so again I'd like you to look at the shadow effects around the ladies' noses and compare between these two images. You've pretty well embodied my suggestions from the first here, and I think it shows with an improved image.

Let's now discuss the ambients of this image: room with a darkish wall about three meters behind the models. You shot to darken that wall towards black, and you've done very well in that regard.

FYI (I'm sure you know this, but it doesn't hurt to go over this stuff) light falls off at a rate inversely square to the light source to subject distance. So, if the light source is 1m away from the subjects, and the wall is 3 meters behind them, how much light will that wall be getting?

Going back a step, that situation, should you wish to do some math based upon your flash head's power, is compromised by the fact that you're also using a light modifier. The modifier starts by spreading the apparent size of the light source, but in so doing, it actually reduces the apparent power - light emitted by the head. At many settings, the flash head can compensate for that, and will just push more power if you're using TTL metering, but I think it's important to understand what's happening. Switch to manual power, cut flash output to half power, open the lens a stop, and see what happens.

Light fall-off means that there's probably no real effect on the background from your flash; if you want more background, then bring your shutter back to 1/125, 1/60, etc but change no other settings.

Let's now take that principle back the first image, and look at the background there. I think you've well, and reading your dialog, I also think you achieved exactly the goal you were wanting.

But let's say that you wanted more daylight there? Meter for the daylight, and then set your camera to the metered settings, perhaps minus one stop, and adjusted so that your shutter speed retains flash sync. Now, set your flash power so that it matches the prescribed aperture, and you should be done.

Hopefully, this makes some sense for you.

Thanks for posting these Rodney. These set of images illustrate some important theories of light which Gary has eloquently pointed out.

#1 and #2 show the inverse square law extremely well. From a practical viewpoint, the closer the source, the more light falloff.

Now that you've got the hang of lighting with one light, I reckon you should get your light-geek on various styles butterfly, remembrandt, loop, cross etc etc. Then move on to imitating the great including Heisler etc.

Some good advice from Gary....one thing I would suggest is to use a sheet of styrofoam or white cardboard and bounce a little of the light back into the shadows. By bringing the reflector in closer or moving it further away you can control the density of the shadows very precisely. I love the simplicity of 1 soft light and perhaps a reflector. Beware the photographer who brings 6 lights to a photographic job.
By the way...those eyes in the first image are just stunning!

#4 is freakin awesome.
Love the light, love the innocence of the subject. Love it as a mono.

They're all great, but no 1 is so good, it's a bit spooky. (Maybe that's not the correct word I was looking for. Spooky, as in, out of this world!) The skin tones, the eyes, everything is quite superb, and an angelic face to go with it.

I love one light portraits. I can't seem to find any willing subjects of late though, so I'm resorting to the good ol' sunsets etc at present.

Congrats on a great set.

ozimax wrote:They're all great, but no 1 is so good, it's a bit spooky. (Maybe that's not the correct word I was looking for. Spooky, as in, out of this world!) The skin tones, the eyes, everything is quite superb, and an angelic face to go with it.

I think #1 is outrageously good! The darker LHS of the face and ear doesn't worry me at all.

Congrats - it's a cracker!

Thanks everyone for the awesome and extremely useful feedback (I've been on training most of the week so havn't been able to respond properly)

Gary - thanks for your extensive commentary - very helpful

biggerry wrote:The first one stands out, not because of teh lighting but the subject, the lighting on all of them is good. Did any one mention to that little girl that she could smile

- would you believe I got the grand total of less than 3 minutes and 6 shot attempts (this shot was frame 2) with this little miss before she was done and ran off to play (and that included adjusting the softbox height/position/etc - I had six kids ages ranged from 3 to 12) and no smiling in any of her frames

biggerry wrote:does your soft box have baffles?

No - just the front diffusion but still pretty nice for the $35

Matt. K wrote:one thing I would suggest is to use a sheet of styrofoam or white cardboard and bounce a little of the light back into the shadows. By bringing the reflector in closer or moving it further away you can control the density of the shadows very precisely.

Thanks Matt - I have a couple popout reflectors and diffusers (one small circle, one large circle (5 way), a trigrip diffuser and trigrip silver/gold). I used the trigrip silver in the second shot but to be honest with the others they were all shot so quickly (kids - especially the younger ones - fidget & get bored very fast and can't be directed ) and it was hard to find one of them to hold the reflector for the others let alone hold it still in the right place.

Rooz wrote:#4 is freakin awesome. Love the light, love the innocence of the subject. Love it as a mono.

Yep - it wasn't anywhere as nice in colour (her skin is a bit blotchy and red - she gets quite bad echema, etc) so the mono really suited it better (taking away the distracting colour) and she really liked it (as do I)

I'm actually thinking of trying mono conversions of more portraits - I take quite a lot of them but sometimes exclude some because whilst I really like the pose, eyes, etc something about the colour, texture, etc has "ruined" it for me.

I think the first shot really works without the smile. Makes it look very innocent and all about the eyes IMO.

the foto fanatic wrote:

ozimax wrote:They're all great, but no 1 is so good, it's a bit spooky. (Maybe that's not the correct word I was looking for. Spooky, as in, out of this world!) The skin tones, the eyes, everything is quite superb, and an angelic face to go with it.

I think #1 is outrageously good! The darker LHS of the face and ear doesn't worry me at all.

Congrats - it's a cracker!

+1

I understand Gary's critique, but this image jumps off the screen as it is. #4 and #5 are also great.

Michael

I like the first one best.